THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. APPEAL OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DIVISION OF STATE POLICE (New Hampshire Personnel Appeals Board)

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. APPEAL OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DIVISION OF STATE POLICE (New Hampshire Personnel Appeals Board)"

Transcription

1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes to press. Errors may be reported by at the following address: Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00 a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court's home page is: THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Personnel Appeals Board No APPEAL OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DIVISION OF STATE POLICE (New Hampshire Personnel Appeals Board) Argued: April 17, 2018 Opinion Issued: September 7, 2018 Milner & Krupski, PLLC, of Concord (John S. Krupski on the brief and orally), for David Appleby. Gordon J. MacDonald, attorney general (Karen A. Schlitzer, senior assistant attorney general, on the brief and orally), for New Hampshire Division of State Police. BASSETT, J. This appeal arises from the respondent s, the New Hampshire Division of State Police (Division), termination of the petitioner, State Trooper David Appleby, based upon the petitioner s abandonment of his extra-duty detail escorting an oversized truck and his conduct in the subsequent investigations of that incident. The petitioner appealed his termination to the New Hampshire Personnel Appeals Board (PAB), which reinstated him. The Division now appeals, arguing that the PAB s decision to reinstate the petitioner was unjust and unreasonable because: (1) the standard set forth in RSA 21-I:58, I (2012) does not permit the PAB to substitute its judgment for that of the appointing authority; and (2) the PAB failed to

2 consider the factors provided for in the applicable personnel rule and relied upon by the Division in reaching its termination decision, including the petitioner s prior disciplinary history. We affirm. The following facts were found by the PAB, or are otherwise derived from the administrative record. The petitioner was hired by the Division in 1999, and worked as a trooper for over fifteen years. He was terminated in August During his employment, he served in a number of capacities in addition to his regular trooper duties, including working many extra-duty detail hours. On May 12, 2015, the petitioner worked an extra-duty detail in which he was assigned to escort an oversized truck from Claremont to the Massachusetts border in Plaistow. The truck s departure was delayed due to mechanical problems, and the petitioner became concerned that he would not be able to complete the escort and also arrive on time for his regularly scheduled duties at Troop F, located in northern New Hampshire. After unsuccessfully seeking substitute coverage, the petitioner escorted the truck to exit 7 on Route 101. In order to arrive on time for his regular duties, the petitioner abandoned the detail before the truck reached the Massachusetts border. After the Division received a complaint that the petitioner had violated rules governing extra-duty details, it initiated an internal investigation. Although the investigating officer found that the petitioner engaged in misconduct by failing to communicate appropriately with dispatch during the escort, he concluded that the petitioner s errors were based on mitigating circumstances and... that no further action was necessary. Upon review of that report, a superior officer continued to have concerns about the petitioner s conduct, and a further investigation ensued. The officer discovered that the petitioner s time sheets reflected that he left the escort at 10:30 a.m. and began his regular-duty shift at 11:00 a.m. However, E-Z pass records demonstrated that the petitioner drove through the tolls at Hooksett at 11:00 a.m., and did not arrive at Troop F headquarters until two hours later. During a subsequent interview with the petitioner, the investigating officers learned for the first time that he had not completed the escort. Although the petitioner admitted that he left the escort before reaching the Massachusetts border, he maintained that he left it in Plaistow, not far from the border. After concluding the investigation, the Division terminated the petitioner s employment, finding that he had violated numerous administrative rules and standards of professional conduct by: (1) traveling from an extraduty detail on scheduled regular-duty time; (2) failing to properly communicate with dispatch during his extra-duty detail; (3) absenting himself from duty without permission by recording that he was on regular duty while traveling 2

3 back from the extra-duty detail; (4) making a false official statement or intentional misrepresentation of fact during the investigations; (5) falsifying his time sheets; (6) obstructing an internal investigation by withholding information; and (7) endangering the life, health, or safety of another individual by leaving the escort early. The Division asserted that, under the personnel rules, some of these violations constituted terminable offenses, including [e]ndangering the life, health or safety of another... individual. See N.H. Admin. R., Per (b)(7), (9), (10), (12). The Division also noted in its termination letter that, in reaching its conclusion, it had considered the fact that this [was] not the first time [the petitioner] [had] been disciplined for similar infractions of the professional standards of conduct and the extra-duty detail policy. The petitioner appealed his termination to the PAB. See RSA 21-I:46, I (2012); RSA 21-I:58, I. After a three-day evidentiary hearing, the PAB concluded that the petitioner had violated the applicable rules by traveling from extra-duty detail on scheduled regular-duty time, failing to properly communicate with dispatch during the escort, absenting himself from duty by clocking-in on regular-duty time while traveling from the extra-duty detail, and by endangering the life, health, or safety of another individual. However, the PAB also found that the petitioner had not violated the rules prohibiting false official statements or misrepresentations of fact, falsification of agency records, or obstruction of an internal investigation. The PAB noted that the petitioner, in response to the mechanical issues that delayed the escort s start time, attempted to contact a supervisor for guidance on two occasions, but no supervisor was available. It also noted that, although the petitioner contacted the detail desk requesting that he be removed from the escort detail, he was not successful. In light of these findings, the PAB concluded that the decision to dismiss the [petitioner] was unjust in light of the facts in evidence, and it ordered that the petitioner be reinstated, subject to a sixty-day suspension without pay. The Division filed a motion for rehearing and reconsideration, which the PAB denied. In June 2017, the petitioner was reinstated as a trooper. The Division filed this appeal the following month. See Sup. Ct. R. 10. On appeal, the Division argues that the PAB s decision to reinstate the petitioner was unreasonable and unjust because: (1) RSA 21-I:58, I, does not authorize the PAB to substitute its own judgment for that of the appointing authority ; and (2) the PAB failed to consider the factors provided for in the applicable personnel rule and relied upon by the Division in reaching its termination decision, including the petitioner s prior disciplinary history. Our review of the PAB s decision is governed by RSA 541:13 (2007). Appeal of Morton, 158 N.H. 76, 78 (2008). As the appealing party, the Division 3

4 has the burden to show that the PAB s decision is clearly unreasonable or unlawful. RSA 541:13. The PAB s findings of fact are deemed to be prima facie lawful and reasonable. Appeal of Alexander, 163 N.H. 397, 401 (2012); see also RSA 541:13. We will not vacate or set aside the PAB s decision except for errors of law, unless we are satisfied, by a clear preponderance of the evidence before us, that such order is unjust or unreasonable. Appeal of Alexander, 163 N.H. at 401. However, we review the PAB s interpretations of statutes and administrative rules de novo. Id. Resolution of the present dispute requires us to interpret statutes and administrative rules. When interpreting both statutes and administrative rules, we ascribe the plain and ordinary meanings to the words used, looking at the rule or statutory scheme as a whole, and not piecemeal. Appeal of Morton, 158 N.H. at 78. RSA 21-I:58, I, provides in part: If the [PAB] finds that the action complained of was taken by the appointing authority for any reason related to politics, religion, age, sex, race, color, ethnic background, marital status, or disabling condition, or on account of the person s sexual orientation, or was taken in violation of a statute or of rules adopted by the director, the employee shall be reinstated to the employee s former position or a position of like seniority, status, and pay.... In all cases, the [PAB] may reinstate an employee or otherwise change or modify any order of the appointing authority, or make such other order as it may deem just. RSA 21-I:58, I (emphasis added). The statute establishes two categories of relief a permanent employee may receive from the PAB: one mandatory and one discretionary. See Appeal of Rowan, 142 N.H. 67, 71 (1997) (stating that the word may is permissive and indicates discretion, while shall is mandatory). First, the statute provides that, if the action complained of was taken by the appointing authority for an impermissible purpose, or violated a statute or applicable administrative rule, the PAB shall reinstate the employee to his or her former position, or a like position. RSA 21-I:58, I. Second, the statute provides that, in all appeals that do not warrant mandatory reinstatement under the above criteria, the PAB is vested with discretion to determine whether to grant relief and how to craft that relief. RSA 21-I:58, I; see also Duffy v. City of Dover, 149 N.H. 178, 181 (2003) ( As a general rule of statutory construction, the word may is permissive and implies the use of discretion. ). The parties agree that this appeal is governed by the discretionary language in the statute. 4

5 The legislature has delegated authority to the PAB to promulgate rules regarding procedures for the conduct of its business. RSA 21-I:46, VII (2012); see Appeal of Mays, 161 N.H. 470, 473 (2011) (if the legislature so delegates, boards have the authority to promulgate rules to fill in the details to effectuate the purpose of the statute, so long as those rules do not add to, detract from, or modify the statute which they are intended to implement (quotations omitted)). New Hampshire Administrative Rule, Per-A (b) provides: (b) In disciplinary appeals, including termination, disciplinary demotion, suspension without pay, withholding of an employee s annual increment or issuance of a written warning, the board shall determine if the appellant proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) The disciplinary action was unlawful; (2) The appointing authority violated the rules of the division of personnel by imposing the disciplinary action under appeal; (3) The disciplinary action was unwarranted by the alleged conduct or failure to meet the work standard in light of the facts in evidence; or (4) The disciplinary action was unjust in light of the facts in evidence. The Division argues that the PAB s reinstatement of the petitioner was unreasonable and unjust because RSA 21-I:58, I, and the applicable administrative rules do not allow the PAB to substitute its own judgment for that of the [Division], particularly when the [Division] has properly followed the personnel rules, and the [PAB] found that the employee committed a terminable offense. Specifically, it argues that, because the PAB agreed with the Division that the petitioner committed the terminable offense of endangering the life, health, or safety of another, it was unjust and unreasonable for the PAB to reinstate the petitioner. The petitioner counters that RSA 21-I:58, I, gives the PAB the authority to reinstate an employee even if it concludes that the employee committed a terminable offense. We agree with the petitioner that the PAB acted within its authority. The PAB held a full evidentiary hearing during which it heard live testimony from the petitioner and several of the investigating officers, and received documentary evidence. See N.H. Admin. R., Per-A (d)(1) (providing that the PAB shall convene full evidentiary hearings for termination appeals). Under the applicable administrative rules, the petitioner 5

6 had the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his termination was unwarranted or unjust in light of the facts in evidence. N.H. Admin. R., Per-A (a), (b)(3)(4). The PAB, after considering the evidence and arguments presented, found that the petitioner had violated several rules some of which were terminable offenses but unanimously voted to grant the appeal and reinstate the petitioner. Neither RSA 21-I:58, I, nor the applicable administrative rules limit the authority of the PAB to reinstate only in situations in which the employee did not commit a terminable offense. Rather, RSA 21-I:58, I, states that [i]n all cases, the [PAB] may reinstate an employee or otherwise change or modify any order of the appointing authority, or make such other order as it may deem just. (Emphasis added.) Therefore, the PAB acted within its authority when it reinstated the petitioner after concluding that the [Division s] decision to dismiss the [petitioner] was unjust in light of the facts in evidence. Accordingly, we conclude that the Division has not met its burden of demonstrating that the PAB s ruling was unjust or unreasonable in this respect. See RSA 541:13. The Division next argues that RSA 21-I:58, I, and the applicable administrative rule require that, in modifying the discipline imposed by the appointing authority, the PAB consider those factors set forth in the personnel rule and relied upon by the appointing authority. See N.H. Admin. R., Per (listing factors an appointing authority may consider in determining appropriate discipline, including, but not limited to, the impact of the conduct on the functions of the agency, the nature and severity of the conduct in relation to the employee s position and responsibilities, and the employee s disciplinary record). Specifically, relying on New Hampshire Administrative Rule Per , the Division argues that the decision was unjust and unreasonable because the PAB overlooked the following relevant factors: (1) the petitioner s conduct undermined public trust in the Division and left it open to civil liability; (2) the severity of the petitioner s endangerment of public safety in relation to his position as a trooper; and (3) the petitioner s disciplinary history, including prior violations of the extra-duty detail policy. The petitioner counters that Per applies only to the appointing authority, not to the PAB, and that its language is permissive, not mandatory. We agree with the petitioner. Neither RSA 21-I:58, I, nor Per requires that the PAB consider specific evidence or factors as a precondition for modifying the order of the appointing authority. See RSA 21-I:58, I; N.H. Admin. R., Per Even assuming that Per applies to the PAB, the rule states that an appointing authority may consider a non-exhaustive list of factors in determining the appropriate form of discipline thereby granting discretion over what factors to consider. N.H. Admin. R., Per (emphasis added). 6

7 Additionally, we observe that, for the most part, the PAB considered the same factors as the Division it merely reached a different conclusion. The PAB methodically addressed each violation of the rules found by the Division: it identified the allegations against the petitioner, assessed the evidence presented before it, and reached a conclusion as to each alleged violation. In doing so, it considered and assessed the evidence regarding the petitioner s endangerment of public safety, and made extensive factual findings regarding the petitioner s disciplinary history. Accordingly, we conclude that the Division has not carried its burden of showing that the PAB s decision was unjust or unreasonable in this regard. The Division also argues that if the [PAB] were not required to consider the reason for the appointing authority s decision, then the appeal process would lead to an unjust and absurd result because it would eviscerate the discretion and authority of the appointing authority granted by the rules. It further asserts that the personnel system will be undermined if we construe the statute as not requiring the PAB to consider the factors relied upon by the appointing authority. We are not persuaded. The purpose of the personnel rules is to implement the statutes governing the Division of Personnel and the PAB, see RSA 21-I:42-:58 (2012 & Supp. 2017), and to establish a statewide system of personnel administration based on... sound management techniques. N.H. Admin. R., Per Under the personnel rules, the appointing authority retains discretion to discipline its employees. See, e.g., N.H. Admin. R., Per The statutory and regulatory scheme, as described above, does not eliminate the discretion of the Division, nor undermine the uniformity or integrity of the personnel system; rather, it provides a mechanism for review of the appointing authority s exercise of discretion. See RSA 21-I:58, I. Finally, to the extent that the Division also argues that the PAB s order was unjust and unreasonable because it did not impose any discipline for the petitioner s two violations of the extra-duty detail rules, we also disagree. The statute does not require the PAB to impose discipline for every violation of the administrative rules or standards of professional conduct. See RSA 21-I:58, I. Here, the PAB did not impose specific sanctions because of the petitioner s violations of the extra-duty detail rules. However, the record is clear that the PAB considered restricting the number of extra-duty details the petitioner could perform as discipline for those violations, but ultimately deferred to the Division, stating that the decision about sanctions should be made by the [Division]. Therefore, we conclude that the PAB s decision was not unjust or unreasonable in this respect. Affirmed. LYNN, C.J., and HICKS and HANTZ MARCONI, JJ., concurred. 7

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. APPEAL OF DONALD W. MURDOCK (New Hampshire Personnel Appeals Board)

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. APPEAL OF DONALD W. MURDOCK (New Hampshire Personnel Appeals Board) NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. APPEAL OF GARRISON PLACE REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST (New Hampshire Wetlands Council)

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. APPEAL OF GARRISON PLACE REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST (New Hampshire Wetlands Council) NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. APPEAL OF BEVERLY DESMARAIS (New Hampshire Compensation Appeals Board)

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. APPEAL OF BEVERLY DESMARAIS (New Hampshire Compensation Appeals Board) NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. BEDFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT & a. STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE & a. Argued: April 17, 2018 Opinion Issued: August 17, 2018

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. BEDFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT & a. STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE & a. Argued: April 17, 2018 Opinion Issued: August 17, 2018 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE BAILEY P. SERPA. Argued: January 18, 2018 Opinion Issued: May 24, 2018

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE BAILEY P. SERPA. Argued: January 18, 2018 Opinion Issued: May 24, 2018 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

Argued: May 5, 2011 Opinion Issued: June 30, 2011

Argued: May 5, 2011 Opinion Issued: June 30, 2011 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE IN RE TREVOR G. Argued: January 16, 2014 Opinion Issued: February 7, 2014

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE IN RE TREVOR G. Argued: January 16, 2014 Opinion Issued: February 7, 2014 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. SCOTT L. BACH & a. NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY. Argued: February 10, 2016 Opinion Issued: June 2, 2016

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. SCOTT L. BACH & a. NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY. Argued: February 10, 2016 Opinion Issued: June 2, 2016 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE JEFFREY MAXFIELD. Argued: February 19, 2015 Opinion Issued: May 19, 2015

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE JEFFREY MAXFIELD. Argued: February 19, 2015 Opinion Issued: May 19, 2015 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF NEW HAMPSHIRE BOARD OF TRUSTEES & a. MARCO DORFSMAN & a.

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF NEW HAMPSHIRE BOARD OF TRUSTEES & a. MARCO DORFSMAN & a. NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE JOHN T. BRAWLEY. Argued: June 14, 2018 Opinion Issued: September 18, 2018

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE JOHN T. BRAWLEY. Argued: June 14, 2018 Opinion Issued: September 18, 2018 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE LAKE FOREST R.V. RESORT, INC. TOWN OF WAKEFIELD & a. Argued: February 10, 2016 Opinion Issued: August 23, 2016

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE LAKE FOREST R.V. RESORT, INC. TOWN OF WAKEFIELD & a. Argued: February 10, 2016 Opinion Issued: August 23, 2016 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE RONALD MCKEOWN. Argued: April 16, 2009 Opinion Issued: December 4, 2009

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE RONALD MCKEOWN. Argued: April 16, 2009 Opinion Issued: December 4, 2009 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE IN RE SEARCH WARRANT FOR RECORDS FROM AT&T. Argued: January 17, 2017 Opinion Issued: June 9, 2017

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE IN RE SEARCH WARRANT FOR RECORDS FROM AT&T. Argued: January 17, 2017 Opinion Issued: June 9, 2017 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

Argued: May 12, 2011 Opinion Issued: December 8, 2011

Argued: May 12, 2011 Opinion Issued: December 8, 2011 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ROBERT GUNDERSON COMMISSIONER, NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ROBERT GUNDERSON COMMISSIONER, NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DANIEL A. EATON. MARY LOUISE EATON & a. Argued: October 10, 2013 Opinion Issued: December 20, 2013

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DANIEL A. EATON. MARY LOUISE EATON & a. Argued: October 10, 2013 Opinion Issued: December 20, 2013 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. APPEAL OF ANNELIE MULLEN (New Hampshire Department of Employment Security)

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. APPEAL OF ANNELIE MULLEN (New Hampshire Department of Employment Security) NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. JOSEPH THOMAS & a. TOWN OF HOOKSETT. Argued: March 8, 2006 Opinion Issued: July 20, 2006

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. JOSEPH THOMAS & a. TOWN OF HOOKSETT. Argued: March 8, 2006 Opinion Issued: July 20, 2006 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. APPEAL OF TRACY WATERMAN (New Hampshire Personnel Appeals Board)

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. APPEAL OF TRACY WATERMAN (New Hampshire Personnel Appeals Board) NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE MYLA RANDALL NAHLA ABOUNAJA. Argued: November 27, 2012 Opinion Issued: January 11, 2013

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE MYLA RANDALL NAHLA ABOUNAJA. Argued: November 27, 2012 Opinion Issued: January 11, 2013 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. K & B ROCK CRUSHING, LLC & a. TOWN OF AUBURN. Submitted: March 16, 2006 Opinion Issued: May 19, 2006

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. K & B ROCK CRUSHING, LLC & a. TOWN OF AUBURN. Submitted: March 16, 2006 Opinion Issued: May 19, 2006 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

PETITION OF THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE (State v. Victor Laporte) Argued: April 10, 2008 Opinion Issued: May 2, 2008

PETITION OF THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE (State v. Victor Laporte) Argued: April 10, 2008 Opinion Issued: May 2, 2008 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE WAYNE H. KASSOTIS TOWN OF FITZWILLIAM. Argued: April 16, 2014 Opinion Issued: August 28, 2014

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE WAYNE H. KASSOTIS TOWN OF FITZWILLIAM. Argued: April 16, 2014 Opinion Issued: August 28, 2014 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. APPEAL OF THOMAS PHILLIPS (New Hampshire Compensation Appeals Board)

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. APPEAL OF THOMAS PHILLIPS (New Hampshire Compensation Appeals Board) NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ROBERT BREEST. Argued: October 15, 2014 Opinion Issued: December 19, 2014

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ROBERT BREEST. Argued: October 15, 2014 Opinion Issued: December 19, 2014 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE IN THE MATTER OF ADAM MUCHMORE AND AMY JAYCOX. Argued: November 4, 2009 Opinion Issued: December 4, 2009

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE IN THE MATTER OF ADAM MUCHMORE AND AMY JAYCOX. Argued: November 4, 2009 Opinion Issued: December 4, 2009 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DREW FULLER. Argued: May 5, 2016 Opinion Issued: June 14, 2016

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DREW FULLER. Argued: May 5, 2016 Opinion Issued: June 14, 2016 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE TIMOTHY BOBOLA. Submitted: January 7, 2016 Opinion Issued: April 7, 2016

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE TIMOTHY BOBOLA. Submitted: January 7, 2016 Opinion Issued: April 7, 2016 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE KIMBERLY THIEL. Argued: April 22, 2010 Opinion Issued: June 30, 2010

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE KIMBERLY THIEL. Argued: April 22, 2010 Opinion Issued: June 30, 2010 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. APPEAL OF MARY ALLEN & a. (New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee)

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. APPEAL OF MARY ALLEN & a. (New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee) NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE LISA A. TAGALAKIS FEDOR. Argued: September 10, 2015 Opinion Issued: November 10, 2015

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE LISA A. TAGALAKIS FEDOR. Argued: September 10, 2015 Opinion Issued: November 10, 2015 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES. Argued: October 15, 2014 Opinion Issued: April 30, 2015

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES. Argued: October 15, 2014 Opinion Issued: April 30, 2015 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. PETITION OF THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE (State v. James Milner)

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. PETITION OF THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE (State v. James Milner) NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE MONICA ANDERSON ESTATE OF MARY D. WOOD. Argued: September 13, 2018 Opinion Issued: November 28, 2018

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE MONICA ANDERSON ESTATE OF MARY D. WOOD. Argued: September 13, 2018 Opinion Issued: November 28, 2018 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE RICHARD PAUL. Argued: June 18, 2014 Opinion Issued: October 24, 2014

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE RICHARD PAUL. Argued: June 18, 2014 Opinion Issued: October 24, 2014 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. STANLEY COLLA & a. TOWN OF HANOVER. Submitted: November 16, 2005 Opinion Issued: January 27, 2006

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. STANLEY COLLA & a. TOWN OF HANOVER. Submitted: November 16, 2005 Opinion Issued: January 27, 2006 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ANTHONY BARNABY THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DAVID CAPLIN

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ANTHONY BARNABY THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DAVID CAPLIN NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. PETITION OF MICHAEL POULICAKOS (New Hampshire Retirement System)

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. PETITION OF MICHAEL POULICAKOS (New Hampshire Retirement System) NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE MERRIAM FARM, INC. TOWN OF SURRY. Argued: June 14, 2012 Opinion Issued: July 18, 2012

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE MERRIAM FARM, INC. TOWN OF SURRY. Argued: June 14, 2012 Opinion Issued: July 18, 2012 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DAN GARAND. TOWN OF EXETER & a. Argued: March 17, 2009 Opinion Issued: July 31, 2009

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DAN GARAND. TOWN OF EXETER & a. Argued: March 17, 2009 Opinion Issued: July 31, 2009 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DANIEL C. THOMPSON. Argued: November 8, 2012 Opinion Issued: December 21, 2012

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DANIEL C. THOMPSON. Argued: November 8, 2012 Opinion Issued: December 21, 2012 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DALE ROBINSON NEW HAMPSHIRE REAL ESTATE COMMISSION. Argued: September 11, 2008 Opinion Issued: October 10, 2008

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DALE ROBINSON NEW HAMPSHIRE REAL ESTATE COMMISSION. Argued: September 11, 2008 Opinion Issued: October 10, 2008 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

APPEAL OF CAMPAIGN FOR RATEPAYERS RIGHTS & a (New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee) Argued: March 10, 2011 Opinion Issued: July 21, 2011

APPEAL OF CAMPAIGN FOR RATEPAYERS RIGHTS & a (New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee) Argued: March 10, 2011 Opinion Issued: July 21, 2011 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE NATALIE ANDERSON ADAM ROBITAILLE. Submitted: November 13, 2018 Opinion Issued: March 8, 2019

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE NATALIE ANDERSON ADAM ROBITAILLE. Submitted: November 13, 2018 Opinion Issued: March 8, 2019 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE JONATHAN BALL. Argued: June 13, 2012 Opinion Issued: September 28, 2012

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE JONATHAN BALL. Argued: June 13, 2012 Opinion Issued: September 28, 2012 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

DANA CHATMAN. JAMES BRADY & a. Argued: June 9, 2011 Opinion Issued: September 15, 2011

DANA CHATMAN. JAMES BRADY & a. Argued: June 9, 2011 Opinion Issued: September 15, 2011 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. KEN GRANT & a. TOWN OF BARRINGTON. Argued: January 31, 2008 Opinion Issued: March 13, 2008

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. KEN GRANT & a. TOWN OF BARRINGTON. Argued: January 31, 2008 Opinion Issued: March 13, 2008 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE KEVIN BALCH. Argued: May 15, 2014 Opinion Issued: January 29, 2015

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE KEVIN BALCH. Argued: May 15, 2014 Opinion Issued: January 29, 2015 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE RITA MACPHERSON JAY S. WEINER. Submitted: September 16, 2008 Opinion Issued: October 30, 2008

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE RITA MACPHERSON JAY S. WEINER. Submitted: September 16, 2008 Opinion Issued: October 30, 2008 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE JUDITH MATTHEWS. Argued: May 22, 2008 Opinion Issued: June 27, 2008

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE JUDITH MATTHEWS. Argued: May 22, 2008 Opinion Issued: June 27, 2008 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SHANNON GALLAGHER THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE TIMOTHY A. HUGHES

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SHANNON GALLAGHER THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE TIMOTHY A. HUGHES NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

JEFFREY M. GRAY. TERI E. KELLY & a. Submitted: September 8, 2010 Opinion Issued: November 24, 2010

JEFFREY M. GRAY. TERI E. KELLY & a. Submitted: September 8, 2010 Opinion Issued: November 24, 2010 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

JOEL M. HARRINGTON. METROPOLIS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. & a. Submitted: June 9, 2011 Opinion Issued: September 22, 2011

JOEL M. HARRINGTON. METROPOLIS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. & a. Submitted: June 9, 2011 Opinion Issued: September 22, 2011 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE GRAND SUMMIT HOTEL CONDOMINIUM UNIT OWNERS ASSOCIATION. L.B.O. HOLDING, INC. d/b/a ATTITASH MOUNTAIN RESORT

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE GRAND SUMMIT HOTEL CONDOMINIUM UNIT OWNERS ASSOCIATION. L.B.O. HOLDING, INC. d/b/a ATTITASH MOUNTAIN RESORT NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE KARL MATEY. Argued: January 11, 2006 Opinion Issued: February 15, 2006

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE KARL MATEY. Argued: January 11, 2006 Opinion Issued: February 15, 2006 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ATV WATCH NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ATV WATCH NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE WALTER W. FISCHER, TRUSTEE OF WALTER W. FISCHER 1993 TRUST NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE BUILDING CODE REVIEW BOARD

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE WALTER W. FISCHER, TRUSTEE OF WALTER W. FISCHER 1993 TRUST NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE BUILDING CODE REVIEW BOARD NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

CITY OF MANCHESTER. SECRETARY OF STATE & a. RYAN CASHIN & a. CITY OF MANCHESTER

CITY OF MANCHESTER. SECRETARY OF STATE & a. RYAN CASHIN & a. CITY OF MANCHESTER NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. PETITION OF STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE (State of New Hampshire v. Michael Lewandowski)

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. PETITION OF STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE (State of New Hampshire v. Michael Lewandowski) NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE HANNAFORD BROTHERS COMPANY. TOWN OF BEDFORD & a. Argued: January 10, 2013 Opinion Issued: April 25, 2013

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE HANNAFORD BROTHERS COMPANY. TOWN OF BEDFORD & a. Argued: January 10, 2013 Opinion Issued: April 25, 2013 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE IN RE JAMES N. Submitted: September 16, 2008 Opinion Issued: October 8, 2008

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE IN RE JAMES N. Submitted: September 16, 2008 Opinion Issued: October 8, 2008 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE STEVEN LAUX. Argued: March 31, 2015 Opinion Issued: May 22, 2015

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE STEVEN LAUX. Argued: March 31, 2015 Opinion Issued: May 22, 2015 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE WILLIAM PLOOF. Argued: April 11, 2013 Opinion Issued: June 28, 2013

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE WILLIAM PLOOF. Argued: April 11, 2013 Opinion Issued: June 28, 2013 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DOMINICK STANIN, SR. Argued: November 9, 2017 Opinion Issued: March 30, 2018

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DOMINICK STANIN, SR. Argued: November 9, 2017 Opinion Issued: March 30, 2018 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. APPEAL OF DAO NGUYEN (New Hampshire Board of Barbering, Cosmetology, and Esthetics)

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. APPEAL OF DAO NGUYEN (New Hampshire Board of Barbering, Cosmetology, and Esthetics) NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE CATHY BURKE. Submitted: February 22, 2006 Opinion Issued: April 12, 2006

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE CATHY BURKE. Submitted: February 22, 2006 Opinion Issued: April 12, 2006 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ADAM MUELLER. Argued: November 13, 2013 Opinion Issued: February 11, 2014

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ADAM MUELLER. Argued: November 13, 2013 Opinion Issued: February 11, 2014 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2016-0219, Petition of Assets Recovery Center, LLC d/b/a Assets Recovery Center of Florida & a., the court on June 16, 2017, issued the following order:

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE JOHN CRIE. Submitted: July 21, 2006 Opinion Issued: November 28, 2006

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE JOHN CRIE. Submitted: July 21, 2006 Opinion Issued: November 28, 2006 Modified 1/11/07 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter,

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE MATTHEW BLUNT. Argued: January 16, 2013 Opinion Issued: March 13, 2013

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE MATTHEW BLUNT. Argued: January 16, 2013 Opinion Issued: March 13, 2013 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. 74 COX STREET, LLC & a. CITY OF NASHUA & a. Argued: June 7, 2007 Opinion Issued: September 21, 2007

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. 74 COX STREET, LLC & a. CITY OF NASHUA & a. Argued: June 7, 2007 Opinion Issued: September 21, 2007 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE PATRICK CANTWELL J & R PROPERTIES UNLIMITED, INC. Argued: April 3, 2007 Opinion Issued: May 30, 2007

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE PATRICK CANTWELL J & R PROPERTIES UNLIMITED, INC. Argued: April 3, 2007 Opinion Issued: May 30, 2007 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE WAYNE VILLENEUVE. Argued: February 17, 2010 Opinion Issued: June 3, 2010

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE WAYNE VILLENEUVE. Argued: February 17, 2010 Opinion Issued: June 3, 2010 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY. JAMES KEVLIK & a. Argued: February 17, 2011 Opinion Issued: April 28, 2011

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY. JAMES KEVLIK & a. Argued: February 17, 2011 Opinion Issued: April 28, 2011 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2015-0350, Thomas Newman v. New Hampshire State Police Permits and Licensing Unit, the court on March 31, 2016, issued the following order: Having considered

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DANIEL C. THOMPSON. Submitted: October 16, 2013 Opinion Issued: December 24, 2013

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DANIEL C. THOMPSON. Submitted: October 16, 2013 Opinion Issued: December 24, 2013 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE RICHARD POLONSKY TOWN OF BEDFORD. Argued: September 14, 2017 Opinion Issued: June 28, 2018

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE RICHARD POLONSKY TOWN OF BEDFORD. Argued: September 14, 2017 Opinion Issued: June 28, 2018 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE JAMES BAZINET. Argued: October 19, 2017 Opinion Issued: April 10, 2018

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE JAMES BAZINET. Argued: October 19, 2017 Opinion Issued: April 10, 2018 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT. In Case No , Appeal of Town of Goshen, the court on August 19, 2015, issued the following order:

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT. In Case No , Appeal of Town of Goshen, the court on August 19, 2015, issued the following order: THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2014-0656, Appeal of Town of Goshen, the court on August 19, 2015, issued the following order: Having considered the parties briefs and oral arguments

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ANTHONY BALLIRO. Argued: September 16, 2008 Opinion Issued: October 30, 2008

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ANTHONY BALLIRO. Argued: September 16, 2008 Opinion Issued: October 30, 2008 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE HEIDI BROUILLETTE. Argued: March 5, 2014 Opinion Issued: July 11, 2014

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE HEIDI BROUILLETTE. Argued: March 5, 2014 Opinion Issued: July 11, 2014 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DAVID FISCHER SUPERINTENDENT, STRAFFORD COUNTY HOUSE OF CORRECTIONS

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DAVID FISCHER SUPERINTENDENT, STRAFFORD COUNTY HOUSE OF CORRECTIONS NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE RIC PAUL FRANKLIN C. SHERBURNE. Argued: May 17, 2006 Opinion Issued: July 21, 2006

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE RIC PAUL FRANKLIN C. SHERBURNE. Argued: May 17, 2006 Opinion Issued: July 21, 2006 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE IN RE THERESA HOULAHAN TRUST. Argued: January 9, 2014 Opinion Issued: August 22, 2014

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE IN RE THERESA HOULAHAN TRUST. Argued: January 9, 2014 Opinion Issued: August 22, 2014 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE GREGORY COLLINS. Argued: February 20, 2014 Opinion Issued: April 18, 2014

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE GREGORY COLLINS. Argued: February 20, 2014 Opinion Issued: April 18, 2014 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. MELVIN SEVERANCE, III & a. TOWN OF EPSOM. Argued: October 11, 2006 Opinion Issued: May 1, 2007

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. MELVIN SEVERANCE, III & a. TOWN OF EPSOM. Argued: October 11, 2006 Opinion Issued: May 1, 2007 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE CINTIA TOSTA RUSSELL BULLIS, JR. Submitted: January 31, 2008 Opinion Issued: February 26, 2008

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE CINTIA TOSTA RUSSELL BULLIS, JR. Submitted: January 31, 2008 Opinion Issued: February 26, 2008 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SLANIA ENTERPRISES, INC. APPLEDORE MEDICAL GROUP, INC. Argued: November 16, 2017 Opinion Issued: May 1, 2018

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SLANIA ENTERPRISES, INC. APPLEDORE MEDICAL GROUP, INC. Argued: November 16, 2017 Opinion Issued: May 1, 2018 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ROLAND MACMILLAN. Argued: January 19, Opinion Issued: April 1, 2005

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ROLAND MACMILLAN. Argued: January 19, Opinion Issued: April 1, 2005 Page 1 of 5 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter,

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE TOWN OF CARROLL WILLIAM RINES. Argued: June 13, 2012 Resubmitted: December 7, 2012 Opinion Issued: January 30, 2013

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE TOWN OF CARROLL WILLIAM RINES. Argued: June 13, 2012 Resubmitted: December 7, 2012 Opinion Issued: January 30, 2013 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. PAUL MCNAMARA & a. BARRY R. HERSH & a. Argued: January 31, 2008 Opinion Issued: April 4, 2008

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. PAUL MCNAMARA & a. BARRY R. HERSH & a. Argued: January 31, 2008 Opinion Issued: April 4, 2008 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES RICHARD A. MOTTOLO

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES RICHARD A. MOTTOLO NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE CHRISTOPHER DOYLE. Argued: September 13, 2007 Opinion Issued: October 17, 2007

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE CHRISTOPHER DOYLE. Argued: September 13, 2007 Opinion Issued: October 17, 2007 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2016-0084, State of New Hampshire v. Andrew Tulley, the court on April 26, 2017, issued the following order: Having considered the briefs and record

More information

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE JOSHUA A. BOUTIN. Argued: October 21, 2010 Opinion Issued: November 24, 2010

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE JOSHUA A. BOUTIN. Argued: October 21, 2010 Opinion Issued: November 24, 2010 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE AMY BARNET. WARDEN, NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE PRISON FOR WOMEN & a.

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE AMY BARNET. WARDEN, NEW HAMPSHIRE STATE PRISON FOR WOMEN & a. NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE IN RE JUVENILE Argued: October 3, 2006 Opinion Issued: January 26, 2007

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE IN RE JUVENILE Argued: October 3, 2006 Opinion Issued: January 26, 2007 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ROBERT BURKE. Argued: April 21, 2011 Opinion Issued: September 22, 2011

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ROBERT BURKE. Argued: April 21, 2011 Opinion Issued: September 22, 2011 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme

More information